is that theater? because it gives real accountability to a government agency that right now has known. the cfpb. then it takes $4.9 billion in savings from just by making reforms that this congress, this house voted by over 400 members to do but the senate, even though this would save $4.9 billion, they haven't even taken this bill up. 414 of us voted for this bill and the senate hasn't taken it up. but i guess i shouldn't be surprised, as the budget chairman said they haven't passed a budget for three years. my gosh. you know, let's quit talking about this group of americans or that group of americans,

let's talk about america as if it's one country. let's don't engage in class warfare, let's don't pit one income group or one group against each other. we're going to take a very small step today, but it's a first step and it's not an unimportant step toward cutting the national debt. the national debt in the last four years has gone up 70%. that's a staggering amount. now, let me say this, chairman bernanke for six years has come before my committee and he said that the national debt is imperiling our economic future. let me use these words. he said our economic security is at risk if we don't cut down

on the debt. mr. mckeon was here speaking. secretary bob gates said it's imperiling our national security. is that theater? is the national debt an illusion? americans don't think so. and the day we'll start acting. we'll start acting and we'll do something else. we'll cut taxes. we'll preserve those tax cuts. except for those millionaires, peek making over $1 million, as mr. van hollen said, we're going to let those tax rates go back up. which is exactly nancy pelosi proposed. we're going to take your proposal. as mr. van hollen said, probably won't get one democratic vote for something that your leader proposed three months ago. that's political theater, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i wish our outgoing chairman of

financial services would check his facts. ms. pelosi, the democratic leader, did not make a tax proposal that would give people over $1 million a year, a $50,000 tax break, which is exactly what the republican plan would do, number one. number two, the proposal that the president put on the table has $1.2 trillion in cuts, if you consider interest savings, which is more than the cuts here and we'll also deal with the sequester. the republican proposal out of financial services would increase the likelihood that the taxpayers would have to fail out the financial industry again. mott reduce it. and they strip away the independence of the financial consumer protection board so lobbyists would meddle so they look out for lobbyists' interests rather than the interests of the american people. so this is another example of

trying to help the folks at the very top at the expense of the rest of the country. and mr. bachus, it wasn't me that made the 40% comment, talking about dividing america. that was the comment made by the republican candidate for president. with that i yield to the distinguished lady from new york, a member of the appropriations committee, mrs. lowey, congratulate her on becoming the new ranking member. mrs. lowey: and i congratulate you on the wisdom that you share with us. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the bill. instead of putting forth a serious comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plan, the republicans are taking a time-out so the house can embark on yet another effort to pass portions of the ryan budget. the same ryan budget that would end compare as we know it, walk away from the caps on discretionary spending agreed to in the budget control act and has no chance of being

signed into law. our constituents want us to negotiate, agree to a solution to avoid economic catastrophe. i had concerns of some of the proposals that the president made in his negotiations with the speaker but at least the president was seeking a workable compromise. instead they walked away from the negotiating table, given everything our country has been through in the last two months from superstorm sandy to the tragedy of newtown, the last thing americans need is the politicians to refuse to compromise while rising market collapse, credit downgrade, putting the brakes on economic growth and job creation. i urge my colleagues to end the political charade, let's get back to the serious task of negotiating a balanced deficit reduction plan. let's do it now.

today we can do it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i want to add my congratulations to the fine gentlewoman from new york on becoming ranking member of the appropriations committee. she has our respect and congratulations. with that i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. cantor: i thank the chairman of the budget committee. mr. speaker, i rise to urge support the measure before us to replace the sequester and reduce the deficit and to extend permanent tax relief for the middle class and hundreds of thousands of small business people. for the past weeks and months, as people are budgeting for their expenses, we kept taxes from going up and offering commonsense spending reforms. the spending reduction act at issue today reduces our deficit

and protects our national security by replacing indiscriminant cuts that are neither strategic nor balanced. mr. speaker, they we all agree that our current spending path is unthinkable and poses a real threat to the economy, to job creation and to our ability to remain competitive in the global economy. we must address the underlying issue that faces this country which is the mounting deficit and load of debt that we're going to leave to this generation and the next. but the president has not offered a serious and balance plan to avoid the fiscal cliff. the risk of unchecked spending are grave. the consequences of our debt crisis will be felt by every student looking for a job that matches their skills after graduation, by having retirees

counting on social security and medicare and by every small business owner looking to expand and hire. we have passed bills and put forward reforms that would save programs like social security, medicare and medicaid from certain and predictable failure. yet, we cannot find cooperation, mr. speaker, from the white house or the other side of the aisle to help solve these problems. it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this place just 11 days from the new year. for months we have been ready and willing to work with the president to prevent my fiscal cliff from impacting small businesses and hardworking families. the president has pushed to hike taxes won't reduce the deficit and left unchecked his government spending will bankrupt our future. our plan will protect 740,000

additional small businesses that would otherwise be hit by the tax hike the president's proposing. we don't believe taxes should go up on anybody, but if we can prevent taxes from going up on as many people as possible, on 99.81% of american families and small businesses, we must and need to do so. americans are looking for jobs. small businesses are deciding whether they should hire or invest in growing and many americans are struggling to make ends meet. we are all committed to creating an economy where everyone has an opportunity to succeed. house republicans are offering a plan today, similar to one that received 53 democratic votes in the nat only two years ago. and the spending reduction act is a serious start to reducing our deficit and protecting our

national security. absent a balanced offer from the president, this is our nation's best option, and senate democrats should take up both of these measures immediately. the president has a choice, mr. speaker. he can support these measures or be responsible for reckless spending and the largest tax hike in american history. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. what is unbalanced is the republican package that we see on the floor today. we already talked about the numbers of the republican plan b tax proposal, which compared to going over the fiscal cliff and the nat alternative would actually provide millionaires with a $50,000 tax cut on average while 25 million

american families will actually see a tax increase of $1,000 on average, including, mr. speaker, some of our soldiers on the front line in afghanistan today. and majority leader talked about doing the math. do the math on the tax plan, because that's exactly what it shows. what the president has called for is a balanced plan that asks for the wealthiest to share the burden of our deficit challenge and make sure had a we get our economy in full gear. and with that i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i did not know i would follow the distinguished majority leader. i just want to say -- and i

also want to talk about plan c -- br for he or anybody else to come on the floor and say the president hasn't proposed spending cuts, it isn't true and it undercuts the necessary level of trust to find common ground. that kind of a statement should not be made. i sat in the rules committee for three hours, participated for two last night. there was no reference to plan c, and it came up just a few minutes secretly before midnight. the purpose of plan c is to try to get votes for plan b within the republican conference. and what it does is to undermine the affordable care act by eliminating the protections and the joint task

committee said it would result in a loss of health insurance coverage for 420,000 people. it would repeal the block grant, the social services block grant, services for millions of americans, and it wasn't many years ago when chairman camp wrote ssbg has been a key source of funding of flexible funding for critical social services. so now in a desperate effort to find votes for plan b, you turn your back on that. and finally it would harm millions of low-income families and their kids. the estimate is it would affect one million families and more than three million kids. searching for votes for plan b with that kind of an approach i

think is abominable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: can i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: you have 17 1/2 minutes and mr. ryan has 19 1/2 minutes. sorry, 15 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: i'll yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the republican majority needs to do what americans do every day in labor negotiations and real estate -- in real estate offices and other places around this country and that is to negotiate. rather than simply restate their position. the president asked for higher tax rates on income above a

quarter of a million dollars, and he compromised it and moved it up to $400,000. the president started with a spending cut number that was $500 billion or $6 huvend billion and he moved it up -- $600 billion and he moved it up to $1.2 trillion and he included a deal with social security increases. the president has compromised. the republicans once again are simply regurgitating their same old position. a tax provision that has a $50,000 a year tax cut for millionaires and a tax increase for 25 million working families, including service members and their children. . a proposal that cuts jobs on transportation projects, day care centers, nursing homes across the country. we should stop wasting our time

on one-sided bills. follow the president's lead. lift our sights higher and negotiate. that is the way out of this issue and i would urge my friends on the majority side to start negotiating. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: following the president's lead, i wish he were leading. the gentleman from michigan said he has offered specification, i wish it were so. where are they? we hear numbers and see budget gimmicks and accounting tricks, but we don't see specifics. we have yet to see a specific solution from this president to deal with this debt crisis. he's claimed he wants to cut $3 of spending to every $1. we haven't seen a specific spending cut proposal from the

president. that's the problem. with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the chairman of the agricultural committee, mr. lucas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation. it's no secret we are facing a severe debt crisis right now. we are at the $16 trillion mark and debt piling up. if we don't act quickly, we will be passing a crushing burden to our children and grandchildren. reducing government spending is never easy. we face difficult choices. the house republicans have lived up to our responsibilities to find ways to cut our costs so we can once again live within our means. the agriculture committee did its part by finding $33 billion in savings over 10 years. we did this by making credible, commonsense reforms to the

supplemental assistance programs. these provisions reduce waste and abuse and close program loopholes. i would like to make it absolutely clear that none of thinks recommendations will prevent families that qualify for benefits from receiving assistance. all they have to do is demonstrate their income and asset level, fill out the paperwork, qualify and they will receive their benefits. we're working very hard to better target the program and improve its integrity so families in need can continue to revenue trishon assistance. every -- receive nutrition assistance. i would like to note that the policies included in this bill are not the only changes that the house agriculture committee has passed that would reduce deficit reduction. in july, we passed a

comprehensive farm bill by a strong bipartisan vote. majority republicans and majority democrats. the bill will save $35 billion in the agricultural baseline. it makes reforms to commodity programs, conservation programs as well as significant reforms to the food stamp program. my committee is doing everything it can to provide a variety of options for all sides and all parties to consider. we have made workable reforms to all programs within our jurisdiction saving taxpayers billions of dollars. we want to be part of the solution. we have proven time and time again we are willing to do our part. again, i urge my colleagues, adopt these reforms. yes, it means you'll have to apply. yes, it means you'll have to demonstrate your assets and your income, but if you're qualified, you will receive the help you need.

you just have to demonstrate you need the help. is that unreasonable? $16 trillion deficit, is that unreasonable? with a trillion annual deficit? demonstrate you need the help and we'll help you. that's not unreasonable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. a couple of points here, the chairman of the budget committee said the president hasn't put any specific spending cuts on the table, that's not true. his proposal has been available to the public for well over a year now. just one specific proposal. the president said we should get rid of excessive agriculture subsidies and called for $30 billion on that item alone. interestingly this proposal -- mr. ryan: would the gentleman yield? mr. van hollen: not right now. mr. ryan: i said net.

mr. van hollen: that also is not true and we'll have a longer discussion, but the reality is ag subsidies is one interesting calculation. they have brought it to the floor again while it cuts deeply into food nutrition programs and doesn't take one penny from ag subsidies or ag businesses. it's important to correct a statement that was made with respect to the food program. i think the chairman knows that the snap statute provides in statute two routes for people to be eligible for food and nutrition assistance. one is the specific income and asset test or they can become eligible under the snap statute based on participation in other programs where they have to show income-based needs. nobody wants fraud. we should find every dollar of wasted money and get rid of it,

but don't pretend that people under the statute qualify that they're engaged in fraud and what you are proposing to do in this republican bill is to deny millions of those people their legal support for folks on nutrition programs and we do not -- we should be doing that at the same time we are giving millionaires $50 million. i yield a minute and a half to mr. pallone from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i thank my colleague from maryland. republicans are once again trying to undermine the recovery of the american middle class. house republicans have rejected a balanced approach and opted to draconian cuts to the people who can afford them the least in an effort to protect the wealthy. the republican plan should be called the reverse robin hood ajeopardya. it starts by taking food out of the mouths of children by

cutting their critical supplemental nutrition assistance program. next they move on to one of their favorite pasttimes trying to repeal the affordable care act that makes health care more affordable for women, children, seniors and the poor. 300,000 low-income children will lose aid. women will lose access to critical health services covered in the a.c.a. like cancer screenings. and the last step is to go after another favorite g.o.p. target and that's social security. house republicans have only one to protect and that's the wealthiest americans. it couldn't be more obvious. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the commerce committee, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. up up --

mr. upton: we work to get our $16 trillion national debt under control and we put us on a path towards a more solemn fiscal future. the spending reduction act of 2012, we identified key areas to reduce spending to replace the sequester and without this thoughtful balanced package of savings, in two weeks, the sequester is going to cut discretionary spending while shielding the lion's share of the government's budget from reduction. critical priorities such as important cancer research at the n.i.h. and review of budgets to help keep food and medicine safe, they are on the chopping block because we failed to engage in a discussion on reforming entitlement programs that threaten to derail the long-term solvency of the u.s. i'm proud of the work of our committee that identified $100

billion in savings over the next decade and accomplished it in a sensible manner. we say enough is enough to the slush funds tucked into obamacare, slush funds we discovered through aggressive oversight to blank checks given to h.h.s. we make commonsense changes to medicaid that will put important programs on firmer ground. we eliminate the maintenance effort requirement and impeding state's ability to implement program measures and weakens the safety net by making it more difficult for state to target resources to the most vulnerable americans. we achieve significant savings in something that was noticebly absent in the president's health care law, that being tort reform. the president declared in his 2011 state of the union message, he said this, i'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs including one that

republicans suggested, medical malpractice reform to rein frivolous lawsuits. now is the time for the president to fulfill that pledge and put doctors, patients and taxpayers first. that's in this bill. the house passed a budget and now legislation again that truly cuts spending to offset the automatic spending cuts or sequester. our debt rose by nearly $4 billion a day and it's our kids who -- and their grandkids who are going to pay the price if we stand by and do nothing. a $20 trillion debt will soon be a reality. if not us, who is going to do it? if not know now, when is it going to happen? our work isn't easy but it's necessary and time to make the tough choices, let's vote for

this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i now yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, and congratulate her on becoming ranking member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: the republican majority is trying to generate votes with plan b when it comes to protecting the american middle class from another taxpayer bailout. this gets a failing grade. it repeals our financial regulating authority that was created in the wall street reform act in too big to fail. consumer financial protection bureau, an agency to make sure that financial institutions play by the rules when it comes to mortgage and student loans,

credit cards and payday lenders. it would eliminate the independent funding and instead tie their hands by making their bureau basically have to go through the appropriations process. the plan likewise eliminates the office of financial research, an agency that's tasked with collecting information on the health of our financial markets and conducting research on financial stability issues. finally, it would kill the home affordable modification program. we need to improve our ability to do loan modifications, not kill it. it is unfortunate that at the end of another session of congress, the republicans are again playing with the u.s. economy when they should be working in a bipartisan manner with the house democrats to avert the fiscal cliff. ladies and gentlemen, i know that many of you didn't know that was in this bill but we have this plan of dissolving

these financial institutions when they put our economy at risk, so vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: may i inquire how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from has 11 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from wisconsin has nine. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i would say a few words again about the priorities reflected in this republican package. if you look at plan b, the tax part, you are giving people who earn over $1 million a year on average a $50,000 tax cut compared to what it would be under the senate proposal. and at the same time, under this proposal that we're talking about here on the floor of the house, you're talking about

eliminating important support in food nutrition programs for millions of americans, including 300,000 kids who would no longer be on school lunch programs. what this boils down to once again, mr. speaker, is a question of priorities. we've got to reduce our deficit and got to get the economy moving again, but we have to deal with the deficit in a balanced way, not in a way that provides additional tax breaks to the wealthiest americans at the expense of the rest of the country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i give myself a minute. . . hardly the kind of draconian cuts that the gentleman seems to suggest. what we would be saying with these programs is you need to be eligible for the actual benefit to receive the benefit. that's not asking too much. if we can't put commonsense reforms like this in place,

we'll never get anywhere in dealing with this debt crisis. the gentlelady from the financial services committee says it's wrong to submit the consumer financial bureau protection agency to the appropriations process. i find that an amazing critique. i yield myself another 30 seconds. this is an agency that gets its money from the federal reserve without ever having to go through congress. when we uphold the constitution to take office, let's never forget that the power of the purse lies in the legislative branch. all these executive agencies should have to go through the appropriations process. that's not gutting a program. that's bringing accountability to a program. and with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the underlying bill, h.r. 6684, the

pentagon reduction act of 2012, because as chairman ryan said, we are not only facing a fiscal cliff but as he put it, we're facing a fiscal abyss. indeed, if you will, a fiscal grand canyon. i want to address my remarks to title 5 -- title 4, excuse me -- of the bill that was referenced by the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan. that's the help, efficient, accessible, timely health care act, or the health act, to have reasonable and comprehensive health care liability reforms. indeed, exactly what the president has been calling for for the last five years. even in the first election when he was campaigning and speaking to the american medical association in chicago. as a physician for over 40 --

30 years, i understand the balance of keeping doctors and hospitals accountable for their actions while limiting the frivolous lawsuits that contribute to inflated health care costs and rising insurance premiums. we need to reform the system so that patients who have been duly wronged receive a deserved settlement. but at the same time protect our nation's physicians who work hard every day to make sure their patients receive quality care. i want to introduce the health act in this 112th congress to make sure those that have valid liability claims are supported at the same time discouraging the practice of jackpot justice. if enacted this title in h.r. 6684 would make health care delivery more accessible and cost-effective in the united states by limiting the amount of plaintiffs -- patient awards

that are available for plaintiff attorney's fees. among other things, the legislation would ensure that all settlements against medical providers are proportional to their responsibility before the patient's injury. mr. speaker, the nonpartisan congressional budget office has stated in the health care were enacted, the federal government alone would save $48 billion over the next 10 years. other studies have shown the savings to be much higher. some as high as $200 billion annually overall in health care which indeed constitutes, as my colleagues know, nearly 1/5 of our entire economy. tort reform helps in defensive medicine, which is the largest cost drivers in health care. when physicians are forced to order these excessive tests simply to avoid malpractice suits, health care costs go up

and patient safety goes down. if the gentleman would yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. ryan: 30 second. mr. gingrey: i believe that the health act will improve health care delivery in this country. this is the type of commonsense market-based reform that our health care system requires. mr. speaker, i fully support h.r. 6684, and more specifically, the immense benefits that the health act will not only have on the federal budget but on the health of our nation. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. let's talk a little bit about what this republican package will and will not do with respect to health issues. first of all, while their bill would replace much of the sequester, they leave in place the 2% across-the-board

medicare cut -- let me say that again. despite all the talk we're hearing today on the floor with the efforts to replace these across-the-board cuts, they leave them in place for medicare which will hit providers and have an impact on the medicare system. second, with respect to children's health, they cut about $20 billion from medicaid and the children's health program over the next 10 years. even though those programs are protected from the sequester. so if we were to go over the fiscal cliff, which apparently is the way our republican colleagues want to take us right now, because we're not down talking to the president but we're here on the floor, if we go over the fiscal cliff, children's health care is protected. but if we adopt the republican proposal, those children will actually see less health

security. in fact, according to the congressional budget office, in 2015 there will be 300,000 children who no longer have coverage under the children's health insurance program. that's what they're proposing here even as their tax plan b provides millionaires with an average tax break of $50,000 compared to the senate plan. and even though their tax plan, while providing millionaires with that average break, compared to the senate plan, is going to increase the tax burden on 25 million families. so an average tax cut for millionaires of $50,000 compared to the senate plan and at the same time a sequester proposal that would result in 300,000 kids in the year 2015 losing their children's health insurance coverage, according to the congressional budget

office. there you have, mr. speaker, the priorities in the republican plan. that's not balance. look, the reason we're here is because our republican colleagues refuse to compromise . they bring this bill to the floor in the name of a productive contribution to compromise when this virtually identical bill is it not get a single democratic vote last spring. not one. and that's compromise? the senate has already said it's not going to take up this bill. this bill has been sitting over there and the president has said he will veto it. we are wasting the people's time, mr. speaker. it's time for the speaker of this house to negotiate with the president. now we know the problem is. there's this book, mr. speaker, that's very aptly titled, it's even worse than it looks. this book was written by two

scholars of the congress. one person in a democratic leaning think tank and the other in a republican leaning think tank. they say with great regret, they say the problem is in the house today we have a republican party that's become an insurgent outlier, ideologically extreme, contentious of the socioeconomic -- and scornfully compromised. that's two scholars. mr. speaker, that's exactly the problem we have here today. it's time for the speaker to actually follow the good counsel of many members of this caucus, either take up the senate bill and pass it or let's get serious and negotiate with the president who's put forward a balanced plan, a plan as many of my colleagues have said that a lot of democrats don't like.

in fact, they are going to be democrats -- there are going to be democrats who won't vote for the proposal that the president has put forward already. many are reserving judgment. that's the test of compromise. not a bill that comes to the floor that's never had a single democratic vote, that's not compromise. the american people want us to work together. let's stop playing these political games, mr. speaker. let's not bring to the floor of the house bills that have never gotten a democratic vote before and which the president has already indicated he will veto because they fail the important test of balance. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield to the chairman of the government reform and oversight committee, mr. issa from california, two minutes. before i do, let me just say over the past decade, medicaid spending increased by 150%.

over the next decade, it's projected to increase by over 225%. and in an effort to slow that increase is called a cut. that's our problem. with that i'd like to yield to mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. shame on this body. we have a $10 trillion hole in the difference between our spending and our revenue. and we can't find a way to compromise? the gentleman from maryland said it didn't receive a single democratic vote. this is the most humble and minimal proposal i could imagine. the tcharme of the budget committee himself would recognize we're not getting close to a balanced budget with this. we are simply making a down payment on it. my committee marked up one of the largest portions of these improvements which aligns the federal work force's compensation, including members of congress and their staffs,

with a little closer to the rest of the work force. a little closer to the rest of hardworking americans. and yet we can't get a single democratic vote. i say to the democrats, quite frankly, shame on you for not being able to make a down payment on a $10 trillion shortfall. and to my colleagues on the democratic side, this isn't enough. this is not nearly enough, but at least we're showing we don't have a partner in the white house and we don't have a partner in this body that will work with us to begin a down payment on $10 trillion worth of shortfalls. in closing, even if fact the president got his original wish that we were going to go over the cliff and raise $538 billion in new revenue, we would still have $500 billion worth of excess spending that is built up since bill clinton left office. i hope the american are watching. i hope they demand than just make a small down payment and then argue about it.

we need to address $10 trillion over 10 years. $1 trillion a year and we're not even beginning to do that. i hope this will pass because in fact we need the democrats to realize this is only the beginning of what will be a much tougher, tougher effort on behalf of the american people. i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. while it's true our republican colleagues are not going to have a partner for a totally lopsided, unbalanced approach that once again minimizes the responsibility of the wealthiest of the country at the expense of everybody else, and with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from massachusetts, the ranking member on the financial services committee, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: the previous speaker

complained about not willing to make cuts. that's right after the house is apparently about to vote on a defense bill on which members boasted about how they were putting weapons systems into play that the pentagon didn't want. far more expensive than the things i have been concerned about. what troubles me most about this -- and it's a tough choice -- is the attack on the consumer financial protection bureau. now i know my republican colleagues hated the idea of an independent bureau responsive to consumers and financial institutions. we created an independent one. they didn't have the votes to stop it. they didn't have the willingness to take it head on. this buries in this large bill, which isn't subject to eafment, a provision that would -- amendment, a provision that would say they are now going to be subject to annual appropriations. oh, i'm told that's a matter of principle. but it's apparently not a matter of principle for financial regulatory institutions that the bankers like. i offered a motion in the committee to subject the federal reserve system to

annual appropriations. that was voted down by the republicans. the consumer bureau, that's dangerous. there they go getting people refunds on credit cards. but the federal reserve, oh, know, they can stay autonomous. the control of the currency, the federal deposit insurance corporation. so the strong principle my republican colleagues discovered only came to light when we tried to protect consumers. and with regard to every other financial institution they say it's ok. they also want to abolish the office of financial research, a nonpartisan entity that's just to get information. there is a wide consensus that we had a problem in the first part of the century when we didn't know what was happening. the republicans wanted us to vote for continued ignorance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. . the gentleman from wisconsin. you have two minutes and the gentleman from maryland has 3 1/2. mr. ryan: i reserve to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield a minute and a half to mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: let me thank the gentleman for the service he has given to this congress. some may review our conduct in the house and one of the speakers on the other side said shame on the congress. i just wanted to join with him on that, but i want history to record because they may ask what the heck was rangel was doing down there? what happened? i hope the record is abundantly clear, that this was outlined in a campaign, presidential campaign and the president said that as a result of america getting into wars and not paying for it and as a result of wrongdoing of wall street and a result of a lot of people out of work, we had to a program to pay down the deficit by cutting back

programs. it seems as though what has happened here is that the republican party missed something. maybe it was election night. maybe it was a small group of the republican party. but they really didn't believe or don't believe that the president won. and this whole idea of protecting 2% of the population actually was on a vote. the people voted. and the president said he was going to protect 98% of the taxpayers. and so somehow this is not being understood. and farther from that, if you have to have more savings and i agree that you do, why would you go, of all places, to the most vulnerable? my friend from wisconsin often tells me how fast prices have risen. is there any relationship between the increase in

unemployment and increase in food stamps? i want to be recorded, mr. speaker, this ain't for real. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman still reserves to close. the gentleman from maryland has two minutes left. mr. van hollen: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished ranking member from california -- i yield the gentleman a minute. mr. waxman: we have seen this business over and over again from the republicans, plan b, plan c. let's work on a bipartisan agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. what they have presented to us today would slash medicaid that will hurt hundreds of thousands of people, including cutting off 300,000 children from health insurance, hurting some of our most vulnerable citizens and impede implementation of the health reform law that is

benefiting millions of americans and fails to protect medicare in billions of dollars in cuts under the sequestration and establishes a federal medical malpractice system trampling on the rights of states and undermines by cutting prevention and public health investments. this is so unacceptable. we have nothing to solve. this is exactly the same republican proposal that were rejected by the american people. they don't want more tax breaks for the billionaires and millionaires and big corporations paid for by cuts on our poorest americans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has a minute to close. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the final minute to the gentleman from from pennsylvania, mr. fattah. mr. fattah: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

people may be confused by some of this debate, but i want to bring common sense to it. a, the preferable option. you get your ticket to heaven or go free or get your christmas tree, you get the present under the christmas tree, when someone suggests to you option b is something less than the best. we have the very best country on the face of the earth. we are the strongest wealthiest and powerful nation in the world and they are asking us to choose and go with plan b. i would hope that the house will reject plan b. it's not worthy of this house, not even of the majority to bring this here tonight because they know it's not going anywhere and if we want to move our country forward, which is what the american people voted for on the last election day, we

need to choose the a option rather than plan b. plan b is not the way to go unless we are trying to get in second place to countries like china and others. if we want to stay in the lead, we need to get our fiscal house in order and reject this plan b. the speaker pro tempore: all time on the democratic side has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin has two minutes remaining. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, let's take a step back and remind us where we are. on january 1, if we do nothing, every american taxpayer will see a massive tax increase. that will dramatically hurt our economy and families. the next day, we'll face a 10% cut in our defense budget. americans chose divided government. whether it was intended or not. the president won. the house is still a republican house. we are going to have to find a way to make this work.

this is what we are intending on doing today. we want to avert this crisis, this cliff. but that means beginning to get spending under control. that means to prevent as many tax increases hitting as many americans as possible. i mean this sincerely, my friend from maryland says we need a balanced approach. the president in all of his latest proposals says more taxes and even more net spending, hardly a balanced approach. here's the problem. our problem is not balanced. while taxes are going up, even if all the current tax rates are extended, taxes still go up. problem is, spending goes way up. spending is a problem. the size of our government will double over the course of this generation as a share of the economy. and the president has shown no

leadership on dealing with the drivers of our debt. we have -- we have passed our budgets and put the specifics out there. let's avert a fiscal cliff and let's get onto the business of preventing the fiscal abyss which is the coming debt crisis that will not be resolved until we have real leadership and that unfortunately, is sorely lacking. i urge passage of this. let's prevent tax increases and down payment on spending and pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for spending reductions. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

mr. van hollen: i am opposed. the clerk: mr. van hollen of maryland moves to recommit the bill to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following, title 8. disclosure of costs and provider cuts under medicare, medicaid. section 801, disclosure of higher beneficiary costs and provider cusses under medicaid medicare and chip cuts. after the enactment of this act and thereafter, the secretary of health and human services shall publish on the public internet web site of the department of health and human services the information described in subsection b with regard to each congressional districts in the united states including the

district of columbia and each of the territories of the united states. b, required information. the information described in this subsection with respect to a congressional district is, one, the number of medicare beneficiaries in such district, the number of medicaid beneficiaries in such district and the number of children's health insurance program beneficiaries in such district. two, at any time during the 10-year period beginning on the first day of the first fiscal year will, a, lose coverage under the medicare program under title 18 of the social security act, under a state plan or waiver under the medicaid program under title 19 of such act or under a state child health plan under the children's health insurance program under title 21 of such act. and as a result of the implementation of this act or b, experience an increase in premiums, cost sharing or other

occupy costs as a result of the implementation of this act and two, the name and location of each hospital and nursing facility that would experience a reduction in payments under the medicare program, a state plan or waiver under the medicaid program or a state child health plan under the children's health insurance program as a result of the implementation of this act. title 9, end taxpayer subsidies for big oil. section 901, deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities not allowed with respect to oil and gas activities of major integrated oil companies. a, in general, subparagraph b, subparagraph a of section 199 b 9 of the internal revenue code is he amended by inserting 9% in the case of any major integrated

oil company as defined in section 167 after 3%. b, effective date, the amendment made by subsection a shall apply to taxable years beginning after december 31, 2012. section 902, prohibition on using last in, first out accounting for major integrated oil companies a, in general, section 472 of the internal revenue code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection, h, major integrated oil companies. notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a major integrated oil company as defined in section 167 h 5 b may not use the method provided in subsection b in inventories towering of any goods. b, special rule, one, in general, the amendment shall apply to taxable years beginning

after december 31, 2012. two, change in method of accounting. in the case of any taxpayer required in the amendment made by this section to change its method of accounting for its first taxable year beginning after december 31, 2012, a, such change shall be treated as initiated by the taxpayer. b, mr. van hollen: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: any objection. hearing none. so ordered. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman of the budget committee began his closing remarks by saying let's take a step back. unfortunately, mr. speaker, that's exactly what this package of bill does for the country. it takes us many steps back. and the reason it takes us back

is because the speaker of this house has backed out of the negotiations with the president for a balanced approach to dealing with our deficit and making sure that we accelerate economic growth and job creation in this country. the issue has never been whether or not to reduce our long-term deficit. the question has always been how. and how you do it reflects your priorities. and the president has made clear his priorities -- priority is not to give higher-income individuals another tax break relative to what would happen if we went over the fiscal cliff and yet exactly that's what this package of proposals would do. and i used this chart a couple of times, mr. speaker and i'm going to use it again and with good reason, because no one has or can dispute the facts in this chart. and the reality is while folks

who earn more than $1 million a year, about 402,000 families in this country, and god bless them, the issue is shared responsibility for reducing our deficit. under the republican plan, they are going to get a $50,000 average tax break while over 25 million americans will see an increase in their tax obligation compared to where we are today. we don't think that's balanced. that's not even balanced within their tax plan. and at the same time they bring to the floor today a bill, a sequestration bill that, by the way, leaves in place the cuts to medicare and then cuts support for kids on food stamps and children under the health insurance bill. groups, frankly, that would be

protected if we went over the fiscal cliff under current law. so, mr. speaker, this is a question of priorities. and so what this motion to commit -- recommit does is say, you know what? we think it's time to end the taxpayer give-aways and subsidies to the big oil companies. my goodness why should we be providing them one more round of tax break, gas prices are high, their profits are going through the roofs. taxpayers should not be subsidizing that and we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing that when we have a bill that removes about 300,000 kids from the school lunch program and removes about 300,000 kids from the children's health insurance program in the year 2015, according to the congressional budget office. so again, this is about priorities. and what this very simple motion to recommit does, in addition to

asking oil companies no longer keep getting taxpayer subsidies, is to disclose to the public what the impact of these cuts will be on citizens throughout this country. . it says tell us what the impact of the medicare and medicaid cuts will be to kids and others throughout our district. at the very least we should know what we're doing. the congressional budget office has told us but anybody who thinks that that independent, nonpartisan group has its projections wrong will get a real world check. this is simple accountability. this is understanding what the impact of your vote will be. so i would hope that our colleagues would recognize that at this time, when oil companies are doing just great, they don't need welfare from the u.s. government, and we

should also understand very clearly what the impact of these cuts will be because the projections by the nonpartisan congressional budget office are that it's going to have a very serious negative impact on kids' health, as well as in terms of the support under the preventive health fund for women around the country. so for example, with the $10 billion cut to the prevention fund, 326,000 women would not get breast cancer screenings, 280,000 women wouldn't get cervical cancer screenings they are slated to receive in 2013. these cuts have real impact. and so the question is not whether to make cuts. we have to make cuts. and the president has put $1.2 trillion in adecisional cuts forward, on top of the $1 trillion. we're asking for balance and we're asking for common sense in our priorities. i urge people to support the

motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from maryland has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> i rise in opsigs to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: i enjoy this. it's good reading. rich irony. title eight, disclosure of higher costs under medicare, medicaid and chip cuts. where was this when they pass odd because macare? where was this need for disclosure on the beneficiaries of medicare when they took $716 billion from medicare to spend on obamacare? where was this concern when they raised $1 trillion in taxes to pay for obamacare? where was all this need for disclosure when they were hitting providers an beneficiaries in medicare to pay for their vaunted obamacare program? the gentleman cuts about cuts to food stamps and medicaid.

food stamps will have grown by 260% instead of 270% under this bill. medicaid has grown over 150% over the last decade and is projected to grow 255% over the next decade. slowing the growth of spending isn't a cut. it's slowing the growth of spending. this is our problem, mr. speaker. if we lambaste these common sense ideas as draconian cuts, we're never going to fix this problem. if we keep this kind of language and definition, heaven help us. the other part on oil companies, all these taxes, look, i've been a member of the ways and means committee for 12 years. a numb of years ago, we put in place a policy that says, we want more manufacturering in america. we want to reward manufacturing

jobs. so if you manufacture something in america, you'll pay effectively lower tax rates than if you make something overseas. the idea would be more u.s. manufacturing jobs. here's what they do. they say, not in -- not if you're in the oil industry. if you're working in the oil fields in north dakota, or the mar se ulous shale in pennsylvania or the woodforde in texas, we don't want your jobs. because if you manufacture oil in america, we're racing your taxes. we're not going to raise your taxes if you manufacture oil overseas but if you create american-made energy jobs this raises your taxes. not only does it raise our taxes and cost american energy jobs, it raise ours gas prices. how is that good for consumers and families? so it's an anti-american energy

job, pro high gas tax bill that all of a sudden calls for the kind of disclosure they weren't willing to disclose when they jammed obamacare through. this is not serious and i reject -- >> will the gentleman yield on the last point? mr. ryan: i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to reeconomy. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes visit. the gentleman from maryland. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the -- does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. van hollen: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in support of the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. this 15-minute vote on the motion will be followed by a

five-minute vote on h.r. 6443 if ordered, and s. 915 if ordered that 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

please make sure you mute your television this afternoon. we will be keeping an eye on some of the votes in particular on the vote on the plan b.

some 13 republicans voted against the rule, moving forward with the debate. there are reports up to 24 republicans are going to vote against the plan b. representative harris is leaning yes' on plan b. defections are at 24. we will keep an eye on that. let's get to your phone calls. we will go to our republican mind. david in tennessee, good afternoon. there you go. go ahead. we will try to go to rick in nebraska. , head. >> i wanted to say the republicans and democrats need to understand they need to leave social security, medicare along. they keep referring to them as entitlements. you pay into that to your whole life. you are darn right you are

entitled to it. taxing the wealthy, cut in foreign aid, republicans seem to be in denial that obama won the election. it is clear the republican river of tears is in flood stage. >> this is george. >> i have to bring complaints. i am tired of all of the rubble -- republicans blaming obama for not submitting his belt. -- his bill. it is supposed to originate in the house and then they send them to the senate where they may negotiate and sent them back. when it finally gets to the obama, and he can say, i like this or i do not and then send it back. all of these guys are blaming, where is obama's recommendation? that is my second point. they need to do their job. this is not an easy problem.

their job is to negotiate. they have to beat this problem into submission and do the best they can, i am very upset about this. i want them to do your job. >> and george from new jersey. the senate this afternoon working on a relief bill for the victims of hurricane sandy. taking your calls on the discussion this afternoon on the bills that are up this afternoon. dealing with the sequestration budget cuts, the replacement bill by republicans that would swap of the defense cuts elsewhere, and other agencies. let's go to montreal. you are on the air. go ahead.

the speaker pro tempore: on

this vote, the yeas 179, the nays are 243, the motion is not adopt the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the gentleman from michigan. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those in favor of the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 215, the nays are 209 with one member voting present. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on tchoachings conference report 4310 on which the yeas and nays are were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h r. 4310, an act to authorize appropriations for military -- for the year 2013 for military activities of the department of defense an defense activities of the department of energy to describe fiscal strength for the fiscal year 2013 and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 315, the nays is 107. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the

question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3197. the clerk: h.r. 3197, a bill to name the department of veterans affairs medical septemberer in spokane, washington as the man-grandstaff medical center. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 2/3 being in the affirmative -- the gentleman from louisiana. >> i request the yeas and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are requested. members will record their votes by electronic device. by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 417 and the nays are 1 --

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 421, the nays are 1. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is passing h.r. 6443. the clerk: a bill to designate the facility of the department of veterans affairs located at 9800 west commercial boulevard in florida as the william kling v.a. clinic. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. 2/3 being in the affirmative -- the gentleman from michigan. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

a sufficient number having arisen having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 422, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and bill is passed and without objection,

the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the question is on suspending the rules and passing s. 925. the clerk: senate 925, an act to designate mount lawrence. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. 2/3 being in the affirmative -- >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan request the yeas and nays. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 408 -- 408. the nays are seven. 2/3 voting in the affirmative, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

when i think about my former colleague who said please to this institution, do what you went. there are of the but abuses within the spending at half of what is necessary because of the national security. we are going through a public time. we have a democratic president and a republican house of resonance.

i did not vote for barack obama. we know that if my party had won everything, it would not have been tough for us. been.uld have i believe that we can tackle this issue. that is really what we desire, that is what is the right thing to do. we are in the midst of a very tough negotiation.

the president of the nine states and the speaker of the house, john boehner. i want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i from 2006, 2010 i served in the minority. it is challenging. it is not easy. we are 11 days away from going over the fiscal cliff and we feel strongly about the need for this institution to state their position. we have heard that the majority leader in the senate has indicated he does not want to bring up if this bill passes. the president has put out a statement of administration policy that this bill would not gain his signature. think anyone is convinced that the bill that

we're going to pass here is one that this is going to end up being the agreement but it is very important in the negotiating process for work to proceed. and for institutions to stake their position. we happen to believe that mr. baker has made some bold steps in working to ensure that they do not go over the fiscal cliff. they enhance the chance for a negotiated resolution. i want to say the process is not been perfect. i am not claiming that everything to place upstairs in the rules committee was perfect but i will say this, if you look at what is that we have included, basically $238 billion over tenure reduction, the

reconciliation package that passed this house earlier this year. ahead we're putting in this month of december in place of the earlier month this year if debate took place. we know this is. for those that might claim the so-called reconciliation package that we have is imposing draconian cuts which will be devastating to those who are struggling in this country, i reminded them.

it is. this is the alternative to the sequester. the pact is that we have will and fact seek a rate increase for those earning in excess of $1 million. that is 0.19%. that means the overwhelming majority, they would avoid saying that tax increase going into effect. i also would like to say that we have to remember that of a look at the tax cuts that became public law, part of that law, the current law makes it clear that we actually would see those rates, that is part of the agreement that we had. so, any action we take that is

less than that is actually a tax cut and we need to recognize that. so, mr. speaker, what we are doing here. we are trying to move ahead with this good faith negotiating process that the speaker and the president are in the middle of and i hope that in light of the balanced approach to this package. this package has enjoyed at least statements of support from democrats in the past from both the past and senate -- from the house and senate. i hope this will be resolved as quickly as it can be. we all know that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity and our goal is to put into place a

policy of have the kind of certainty that will encourage our job creators. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> bernanke, mr. speaker. i think my colleagues. mr. speaker, today, we're watching an attempt to perpetuate a hoax. do not father to take notes. no need to call the family in to see any history being made. there's nothing happening. this is not come anywhere close, this solution. this is a political gimmick and all of us recognize that it has no chance of becoming law. the process that brought us here has been equally shameful.

it has been painful to watch the otherwise responsible members of the majority play their assigned roles pretending that what we did last night was normal and legitimate. last night, we saw one of the greatest miscarriages of the democratic process is on my time on the rules committee. facing the impending fiscal cliff that could devastate our economy, they decided to cobble together a last-minute legislation on a wing and a prayer. last night, the rules committee debated legislation that we have rarely seen and we were told there would be two bills. one of them disappeared. even while the debate is taking place, a third was dropped into our lap. it turned out to be a bill that went through the house of representatives in may.

it destroyed every possibility of people surviving. that is how they want to solve the greatest cliff facing our nation. they believe that it will do aptly nothing and this is responsible governing? today, we prepared to vote on this legislation and i think adjourn for the final time this year. if this is their final attempt to reach a compromise, then our nation thus face a frightening times. if no compromise is reached, we may face the greatest displacement of workers since 1929 as sequestration takes effect and forces countless layoffs. how devastating is that to a recovering economy? every american knows we cannot let this happen and every member

of congress knows we would not let it happen. then after last night, i am not so sure. this is not a serious solution to avoid economic catastrophe, it is just one last attack on the poor and middle-class right before we tumble off together over the fiscal cliff. today's bill contains many dangerous provisions, i mentioned the part that we got last night. this bill provided an average tax cut of $50,000 for millionaires and billionaires between mile, 25 million working families would pay an average of a thousand dollars more in taxes. 11 million families would lose a tax credit. the drastic cuts were linked to medicare and the important provisions of the affordable care act would be no more. they simply could not adjourn this year without one more

attempt at destroying the healthcare bill that will provide health care for millions more americans being covered by insurance that they have never been able to have before. during my last election, i met more than one person. they tell me that one of them had been born with cerebral -- the rebuttal palsy. -- they told me that one of them cerebral born with three br palsy. she has a pre-existing condition that prevented her. it was not until she was 65 and was able to get medicare that she had the peace of mind to be covered. why do we keep trying to be the

only industrial country that does not take better care of its people? finally, 2 million americans would lose their unemployment. as i have said, the nutrition assistance program would be gutted. those cuts would leave millions struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. americans that we are talking about, those that would be suffering would not be the ones that cause problems in this country. this has nothing to do with financial services. continually, continually this house has asked of them to pay the price. enough already. they're not to blame and they should not be put on the block. sadly, just days ago, it appeared that president obama and speaker boehner close to the fiscal cliff compromise.

president obama had made concessions, some that our side is not that crazy about. in the blink of an eye, the majority decided to walk away and denounced what they are going to do it in a ticket or leave it manner. mr. speaker, don't anyone be fooled. the american people know better. they know that a compromise means that we must meet in the middle. unfortunately, the majority continues to think if they pass extreme legislation and they run for the hills, the rest of us will be forced to give an. we have seen these similar antics throughout the 112 congress. from holding the full faith and credit of this nation for the first time in its history hostage and losing our credit rating. devoting 33 times to repeal health care reform.

the majority has continually advanced a cynical and parsonages and at the extent of our welfare. given this, it is a surprise that the approval rating is at an all-time low and historians say that it is the least productive congress in our history. in the election just last month, the american people made their voices heard. when asked to choose between an extreme agenda that took care of the millionaires and billionaires, they said now. they wanted not to be going off of a fiscal cliff and i have made that very clear. what we have done to the economic future by debating the fiscal cliff as long as we had, knowing as we have that i don't think that we will go over it. i'm not clear what we're doing today unless that is to cut and run. in the process, the majority has

presided over shameful legislation not worthy of this institution. when our nation is in desperate need of serious solutions, the majority is doing everything in his power to avoid finding the answers. i strongly oppose this and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the rules and i reserve the balance of my time. the gentleman from california. >> i yield myself off as much time as i might consume. i agree with her completely, mr. speaker. it is very important that we not let the sequestered take place and i hope and believe that she is right that we will not see that happen. and, i would like to associate myself with her remarks as relates to insuring that we did not go over the fiscal cliff. that is something that is very

very desired on our part as well. i would like to respond to one. before i yield to my good friend and say that i can provide my friend. i said in the rules committee, mr. speaker, that we're going to continue with our work. the action that we're going to take as relates to these two measures. again, the reconciliation package which is designed to ensure that we don't see sequestration which we all know would be devastating. this is a package of $238 billion over 10 years and is a very responsible measure that is not going to be getting programs but it is going to responsibly began tackling entitlements reform.

>> with the gentleman yield? >> i appreciate you giving your assurance. mr. mcgovern and i, in our turn, asked for assurance last night of the bill we were looking at was the bill we were going to vote on. all we got was a double speak. i appreciate the speaker giving his time, but i will give it back to you. >> i will reclaim my time. i have served as long in the majority as john dingell. i have served longer in the minority then the dean of the house has served. i served 18 years in the minority.

i have associated himself with the remarks of mr. rochester to request we do not see the sequester take place or we go over the fiscal cliff, and to say the package we have that deals with the reduction of $238 over 10 years is virtually identical to what passed the house. it is actually reduced by 100 pages. it is much smaller than what was passed in may by this house. i believe is a package that is, again, one that can responsibly address -- be a first step toward something we all know does need to be done. as i talk to democrats, there is recognition that entitlement reform house to take place. i think that is the right thing to do. with that, i would like to yield 2.5 minutes to my very good friend, my fellow californian. >> some of the world a bit from

earlier for the consideration of the fiscal cliff bills debated in the house. the first husband debated and passed. that replaces automatic defense spending cuts known as sequestration. it passed the house by a vote of 215-209. a live look at the capitol, with a light on the top, meaning it is still session, although the house is in recess, subject to the call of the chair. we are finding out from a number of police from reporters covering the hill that there is going to be a meeting on capitol hill. speaker banner called a conference at 7:25 eastern. also, a couple of other tweets. house republicans holding the meeting at 7:45 to discuss the vote. he also says that senator boardman is over on the house side. he was on the house side during the vote, and said he was asked to make some calls to ask republicans to support the plan b.

on fox, he says portman says he thinks house republicans will have the votes tonight. the house has passed that sequester replacement bill, 215-209. the raft that series of votes and quickly went into an unexpected recess. speaker john boehner holding the conference meeting at 7:45 eastern. a couple of other reports. jill? and, a producer on capitol hill with cbs, agreed saying it is still the plan to vote tonight, but they are still counting the votes. we are keeping an eye on some of the reports. you can see some of the tweets online and can, using the have tied -- hashtag #fiscalcliff. we are going to take you back to some floor debate.

still to come is the debate on speaker john boehner's plan, which would raise tax rates for those earning $1 million or more. that is still to come. obviously, a final vote on that as well. >> this is what we should be doing almost every day here, cutting spending. in particular, it cuts $236 billion over the next 10 years in net spending cuts to pay for, one year of the sequestered. it sets aside the sequester are non-defense discretionary. it cuts her $2.18 billion aho lead -- in concessionary spending. we believe it is better to identify waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, in order to prevent the sequester from occurring. let us set aside the question for the year. in exchange, it has a net spending reduction of $236

billion. we think the path forward is even lower spending, which is what this achieves. i would like to yield five minutes to the chairman of the house armed services committee. >> today, we will send to the senate a way out of the fiscal crisis. whether then react in defense, i ask the other party to treat this as a good faith effort to protect america's middle class and small businesses from harmful tax hikes, and to reduce spending to resolve sequestration. we know the president is willing to put adjustments to income amounts on the table. this proposal provides a framework on how to do that. if we fail to act on generic to, a hammer strike will fall on america's armed forces. it will be one of the most

damaging blow to our national security in history. it will do injury to a military that took generations to build. it will take generations to fixed. the blow will not come from an enemy, but from our own inability to fulfill the basic obligations of governance. and we must stop brinksmanship. we must not allow impasses of our own doing to harm our armed forces. i call on the president to lead rather than create a new crisis. we cannot stand idly by while we have american men and women fighting to keep us safe across the globe. it is a disgrace that the president decided to use them as pawns in these negotiations. it is a disgrace if we have not managed to rescue them yet. and, my leadership made me a promise sequestration would not happen today. for the sixth time, they are

bringing a measure to the floor in an effort to keep that promise. i thank them for what they have done, and which we could have done even more. the american people were also promised that sequestration would not happen. many times over his campaign and in the presence of our troops and veterans, the commander in chief made that promise. sequestration will not have a. yet as we stand here today, days from the catastrophe the president of the united states has not lifted a finger to keep that promise. if the senate fails to take our offer seriously, we will likely return to washington after christmas. the 68,000 american troops in afghanistan do not have that luxury. we ask them to bear the pain of combat. i hope will not ask them to shoulder the weight of washington's irresponsibility. every man and woman who serves in this chamber, and the one at down the chamber, he are the

recipients of a sacred trust. we have made a said could lead on the bible. part of that pledge is to defend men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. if we end the year without resolving sequestration, he will all be in direct and unforgivable violation of that trust. i have debated and reasoned, with my colleagues, and i beg you -- do not let the year end without ending sequestration. i urge passage of this measure. >> field that to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van holland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to say to my friend, the chairman of the budget committees, thank you. i want to say to my friend, the chairman of the budget committee, i have great respect for him, and i hope you will not take it the wrong way, but i am

glad to have you back. i look forward to working with you next year. i hope we will be able to work in a bipartisan way, starting right now. unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. we are engaged here in the house, on this floor today, in what has become a ridiculous political stunt which will actually take us much closer as a country to going over and the fiscal cliff. we are wasting valuable time. the speaker will be engaged with the president of the united states in negotiations, read the than having walked away from these negotiations with the president. walking away is becoming a bone bat hut -- a bad habit. the president called for shared responsibility. it calls for $1.20 trillion in additional revenues from high- income earners over the next 10 years, and $1.20 trillion in

additional cuts if you include interest savings over the next 10 years. by the way, that 1.2 trillion dollars in cuts comes off on top of the cuts the i've already been agreed to this year. to our colleague in the armed services committee, when he says the president has not lifted a finger to are which the kahane -- to stop the sequester on the defense is not true. he would remove the sequestered for a least one year, and before 10. if it is more cuts than we are talking about on the floor today. what we really have is the fact that too many of our republican colleagues think that compromise is a dirty word. aum -- and that is what brings us to the floor today in this political exercise period of has

unfortunately been the case throughout the year, the republican package we are dealing with today has 2 objectives. one objective is to minimize the impact of the budget challenge on high income earners, and to shift that burden on to middle income earners and working people. the numbers tell a story. if we go over the fiscal cliff, people earning over a million dollars, will face a significant income tax hike. but under the republican plan, compared to the senate plan that is before this house right now, the house republican plan would give those millionaires $50,000 in tax breaks, on average. you know who will pay more under the republican plan? a lot of middle-class families. 11 million families will see an

average of $1,100 tax increase because the republican plan takes away the tuition tax credit. 12 million families will lose the enhanced child tax credit. there will face an $800 burden. earned income tax credit, 6 million families will pay more. the typical u.s. army private, including men and women serving us in afghanistan today, married with a newborn infant, will see a $453 increase in taxes as a result of republican plan b. 25 million families will pay an average of $1,000 or more, so that 402,000 families who make over $1 million could get an average tax break of $50,000. that is the tax part of the republican plan.

and we are here today, right now, he talking about the cutting part of the republican plan. i think all of us recall, during the election, the republican presidential candidate said, and i quote, 47% of the people will vote for the president, no matter what. he went on to say, "and so my job is not to worry about these people." the republican sequestered cutting plan is making an those promises come true. it sends a signal that republican colleagues do not care about the 47%, because do you know who gets hit? here is what it would do. by the way, this is a recycled version. we have virtually the same version last spring. we are just doing it again. the bill did not get a single

democratic vote. it is brought here under the promise of some kind of bipartisan approach. the reason it did not get him credit support is, while there were providing tax breaks to make people -- to people who make over $1 million, 22 million children will face reduced or eliminated food benefits. this is according to the congressional budget office. 1.8 million americans will lose food assistance. of those, nearly 300,000 children will lose their school free reduced lunch program. what the sequester avoidance plan does is make good on a promise that republicans do not care about the 47%. that is why it did not get any democratic votes last spring. i urge my colleagues to vote against it today.

>> this is not real. this is what congress is supposed to do. let us review what this legislation is or is not. number 1, six congressional committees and went through their areas of jurisdiction to look for areas where spending can be reduced, he to look for areas where there is government duplication, to look for areas where there was government waste and fraud. reported out of those committees, a savings, spending cuts, and we package it together. according to the speaker, this package of spending cuts are built on top of the fact that we passed a budget to pay off the debt, to make sure that nobody gets a tax increase. that is more than the president

can say. the president's budget was voted down unanimously in the house and the senate. the senate? they have not passed a budget in three years. we do not just have a fiscal cliff. we have a fiscal abyss in front of us. that is the debt crisis on our horizon. failure to address this debt crisis means not just 47% of americans, but every american gets hurt. every american gets a lower standard of living. every american, especially the next generation, receives a lower standard of living if we do not fix this mess. what is this we are doing here today? we are saying we do not think the crude across the board sequester is good policy. we think it will harm our national security. the primary responsibility of the federal government. and we want to replace next year's cuts with even more

spending cuts that we think are smart spending cuts. the gentleman is talking about people who will lose food stamps and free lunches. let me say it clearly. every single person who qualifies for food stamps would get food stamps. every single child who qualifies for free and reduced lunch will get their free and reduced lunch. ahold -- what we are saying is, you have to qualify to get these benefits. that is not the case today. we are spending so much money that people who do not qualify for these benefits, who make more than they should, our qualify for these benefits. there is a lot of waste, a lot of fraud, a lot of abuse and, and we are beginning to rain that in with this. with respect to taxes, what we are trying to do is limit the damage to the taxpayer.

there is not a single tax increase we are proposing, not a single one. "we are saying is prevent as many tax increases as possible from hitting anybody in this economy. you know what? it is not a very good economy. we have a president who, in every proposal he has given us, has called for net spending increases instead of tax increases. he used to say, we have to cut $3 of spending for every dollar of tax increases. let us re spending? that is what got us in trouble in the first place. with that, i would like to yield to the chairman of the financial

services committee, mr. bachus. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman from maryland says this is political theater, but this is a waste of time. let me tell you that the financial services committee has cut $35 billion of unnecessary, wasteful spending. dodd-frank said that if 82 big to fill the company goes broke, we will pay off their counterparts. didn't the american people tell us in 2008 and 2009 what they felt about using their money to bail out creditors and counter

parties? ahoy people that are making $40,000 a year would have to pay as much $29 billion. we would also do away with the hamp program. the special inspector general for tarp, the congressional oversight panel, and the government accounting office -- the government accounting office, many of those employees, your constituents in maryland -- even the editorial writers of "the new york times "says it -- this is "the new york times puzzle they said, "help does more harm than good."

>> it is not me talking about dividing america. congratulations on becoming the new ranking member. >> i rise in strong opposition to the bill. instead of putting forth a balance deficit reduction plan, the republicans are taking a timeout, so the house can embark

on another futile effort to pass portions of the roy and budget. -- ryan budget. the same budget would end medicare as we know it, cap discretionary spending, he and has no chance of being signed into law. our constituents want us to negotiate, agree to a solution to avoid economic catastrophe. i have concerns with some of the proposals the president has made in his negotiations with the speaker. at least the president was seeking compromise. instead, the majority walked away from the negotiating table. have walked away from a deficit reduction package. given everything our country has been through the last two months, which, superstore -- with superstormsandy and the tragedy in newtown, the last thing we need is to compromise,

putting the brakes on economic growth and job creation. i urge my colleagues to endorse the political terrain. let us get back to negotiating a balance of this reduction plan. let us do it now, today. we can do it. >> with the fiscal cliffs looming in 12 days, the u.s. house, is making a late evening of it. the sequestration bill replaced the automatic defense spending cuts known as sequestration with cuts in other agencies. we take you back to the debate from earlier in just a bit. that is where things stand. the house, about 50 minutes ago, has doubled up, in recess, subject to the call of the chair. republican members are meeting at this hour to discuss the vote coming up and the debate, up on speaker brainer -- boehner's plan b measure, that would raise

rates on those earning $1 million or more. a couple of tweets on that meeting. reporters are outside. "hearing booing" regarding the scramble for votes. another reporter says shares were heard as a nonscheduled conference begins in the capitol basement. a couple of other notes, both twweets and facebook comments. we are going to take you live. we missed a video. that meeting looks like it might be breaking up. we have cameras over at the capitol. members are moving quickly. another post on facebook. now we have live video from just outside the conference room. a number of members -- the meeting may be breaking up. a conservative radio host said,

"i am told gop leadership in the house is now threatening members with losing their committee posts if they do not vote for the boehner tax increase." a couple of other notes. jonathan weisman of "the new york times," asked whether republicans will pass plan b. a republican from texas shook her head. we are not sure whether they are done with the meeting. we will have live coverage when they gavel back in. will take you back to some of the debate from a short while ago on the sequestration bill that passed by a vote to 215- 209. >> to 11 days from the new year. for months, we have them ready and willing to work with the president to prevent the fiscal clear from impact in small businesses andd-